"The poll, which was conducted by Public Policy Polling and commissioned by the liberal website Daily Kos, shows GOP Sen. Randy Hopper leading by one percentage point and GOP. Sen. Luther Olsen ahead by three....

"... Hopper, Olsen, and GOP Sen. Alberta Darling are seen as three lawmakers whose recalls are too close to call, but whose defeat would give Democrats the three-seat change they need to retake the state Senate (presuming of course they protect the two Democratic senators facing recall on August 16)."

As to what all the politicians tried to do? Besides stealing another trillion ... they're trying to make the pump INFLATE. While we're in the midst of a Great Depression.

My guess? We're gonna watch prices for things like stocks, and housing, keep going down. Not exactly a nose-dive. But a place where the retail customer will "go back in."

Back in the 1940's ... (Because I remember back to them, those days.) Rents were so cheap ... people didn't think of owning anything. And, landlords? They were put under the thumb of politicians. Who set "rent controls" into place.

Keeping rents cheap.

And, the "retail trade" out of the market until we reached the 1950's. And Trump's dad, and Leavitt ... bought lots far away from New York City. Where they built developments.

People drove out ... and then you saw lots of people buying unfinished homes ... for $7,000. With the GI's getting government support.

I can even remember when people bought ... they became giddy. Only after they moved in ... did the man, who was the wage earner ... get to go two hours ... to get to work. Where he had to show up by 9AM.

Sure. There was a BOOM. You could open a retail store just to cater to the needs of the new homeowners. Who bought everything from lawnmowers. To Frigidaires. To carpeting. And, cleaning materials. School supplies. And furniture.

Jobs also followed. You didn't lose much moving your factory out of Manhattan. To one of the boroughs. Or to Long Island.

Then, Americans doubled the number of cars they kept in their garage.

Funny, back then. People were loyal to a brand name. In other words? If your dad drove a Ford, so did you. Ditto, for Chevrolets.

Meanwhile, we've been through hard times. Investments can turn on a dime. And, you make money, actually, because they are full of risks. As well as, sometimes, rewards.

So many people were in "hands on" businesses ... that you could absorb knowledge even if your dad owned a grocery store.

Margaret Thatcher's dad owned a grocery store. That's how she grew up to become not just the Iron Lady. But the woman who became a conservative's conservative.

Since the recalls are all about not accepting the will of the people as expressed in the last election, expect that if the Democrats don't get their majority, there will be a public hissy-fit and charges of voter fraud.

It's so hard to be "the man" and "oppressed" at the very same time, but it sure is fun.

AlphaLiberal. Obama was the one who made the point he was driving the economy. The media reported on his blurbage quite extensively. The GoP had the keys taken from them and were in the back seat.

The only problem was that Obama got a bit drunk on power and swerved off the road narrowly missing the Tea Party. When the police came to test him for sobriety, he blurrly pointed over to the Tea Party and said "it's their fault officer"

"Cutting the deficit will not create jobs. Creating jobs will cut the deficit."

The first time a Democrat creates a job, pigs will fly and there will be a snowstorm in hell.

Not only do Democrats not create jobs, when someone like Walker makes sure that people can keep their jobs or even hire on more people, the Democrats try to destroy him and anyone elected who supported him.

"Cutting the deficit will not create jobs. Creating jobs will cut the deficit."

This is actually very Republican, very Tea Party.

We assume, of course, that the "jobs" are all government honeypots that don't actually create anything at all and can't, as has been pointed out, create a perpetual motion machine. But take that assumption away and assume that "jobs" are private sector jobs and it's a simple statement of fact.

It's not reducing the deficit that creates jobs, it's a better business environment -- something more stable and less punitive so that businesses can risk expansion and hiring. The creation of those jobs is what would reduce the deficit.

Of course, if there is nothing bad about the deficit, why bother? Simply expand government and expand the un-harmful deficit. Borrow more from China. Why not?

It seems to be a matter of religious faith and fervor that there is no harm to operating in the red. Any attempt to do something about operating in the red, at a constant and escalating loss, is portrayed as hateful and outright harmful... terrorists and bombs and all that.

Trying to do something about running government ahead of funds demands months of tantrums and recall elections.

Synova, there must have been pigs filling the skies back in the 1930s when FDR crated all those jobs. Even then, Republicans opposed job creation.

Hey, Synova, please explain this: If the Repubclian magic elixir of tax cuts creates jobs, then why did George Bush's two terms with (deregulation and) tax cuts out the yazoo to the tune of trillions of dollars lead to massive job losses?

Remember Bush's last year when we were losing 500,000+ jobs per month?

I remember all the *whining* about jobs under Bush, when the unemployment rate was 5 point something.

It was a disaster, we were told. When it was election time in 2004 the media tried to make it about jobs and if someone pointed out that the unemployment rate really wasn't that bad someone else would say, "Tell that to the people out of work!"

Now the unemployment rate is far higher and seems to be stuck where it is at twice the rate or more. There are so many "discouraged" job seekers and so many people who are "underemployed" that the numbers we are given have little actual meaning.

And I'm supposed to believe that it was actually Bush who was shedding jobs and Obama is creating them?

And that Obama is creating private sector growth?

On what planet. I will go there. And get a job.

(Talked to a gentleman last night, young man from Germany working in Physics at the University. He has to decide if he should stay here to write his thesis and complete what he's finding very interesting, or go home to Germany and get his foot in the door there so that when it all goes straight to hell he'll already have an established place. This is not just US in trouble here.)

Also, please note, that I specifically said what it was created jobs and it was specifically not "tax cuts."

Tax cuts can help, but mostly people who are hiring need to know they aren't going to get screwed by vindictive asses who decide that they've made enough money now, and don't need any more.

The issue is jobs.

Democrats are unserious about creating any that are not based on redistribution of tax funds, throwing more money at pet projects, and calling it "stimulus" while doing their best to make capitalists out to be the villains instead of the saviors.

They say Rick Perry's going to throw his hat in the race this weekend. What are your thoughts on him? I'm thinking he's my favorite right now, but I also think I need more information about him. Pros and cons, in the commenters' eyes?

"Synova, if you are going to to insist that Bush handed off a fine economy to Obama..."

If I was going to do that, I would have.

I simply responded to the ridiculous implication that it's not Obama, it's Bush.

Everyone knows, of course (and even if they lie about it), that no one was interested in pushing too hard to reign back the "social justice" based housing loans and economic manipulation prior to the summer of 2008. Republicans are far from innocent in this, even if the notion that bad-debt is a public good was a liberal doctrine. It's not just that Wall Street was playing numbers games but that government had laws requiring banks to issue bad loans and that government was propping up bad business practices.

The economy was not *fine*.

Typically, however, the Democrats who got an overwhelming majority in 2006 and a president who vetoed nothing they sent him, spent even more, and after the economy started to domino in 2008 and Obama was elected Bush signed what the Congress sent him, starting the stimulus and Obama doubled down on corporate bailouts, debt and borrowing, during his first two years of TOTAL DOMINANCE. (You gotta say that like a mortal combat voice over.)

And now, of course, the answer is to do more of the same only bigger and better. The key to the economy wasn't home ownership by people who couldn't quite afford it, that was the key to a meltdown, but we're supposed to believe that the key to the economy is spending beyond our means, to get the juice flowing.

What logic explains why that will work better this time than it did before?

And Obama has been flagrantly neglecting anything remotely like job creation. He continues to scapegoat the job creators as if the economy is simply a matter of preferences, and businesses prefer to be greedy tight-wads.

And somehow, the rates of unemployment are Bush's fault?

Obama is not interested in jobs. He's proven that. He makes noises about it when he has to, but mostly he just wants us all to hate the people who hire us.

"Exit Polling" ... doesn't that fly in the face of "your ballot choice is a secret?"

I hate it when we can get people to say out loud for whom they voted.

And, I also remember ... back to when I was a kid. (Born in 1939). Politicians gave out buttons!

So, there, too, people were willing to share a secret.

Our Founding Fathers did give us the privilege though ... to keep a secret.

Meanwhile, I don't think I'd respond to a pollster with the truth.

And, I even believe that by slipping my absentee ballot into an envelope ... it goes secure. through the post office. And, if you tried to figure out how I voted, you'd go to jail. To a Federal prison.

Yet people tell strangers whom they cast their ballots for?

I've sinned. Because looking back ... my choices rarely won the race.

It's like going to the track, though. I wouldn't bet $2 to bet on a horse! Some horses rise in stature, though. And, their wins become something for the history books.

He'll be like Danny Kaye. Comes on stage. And, it's hard to see him a star. His "schtick" was to be loser-man. Where losers win. (They win the girl at the end.)

Obama doesn't have to look aggressive. He's Don Quixote already.

What's bad is that the GOP got suckered into giving Boehner the keys to the car.

Shows ya that Thomas E Dewey couldn't produce the wardrobe that won an election ... where Truman was supposed to be trounced.

What did Harry do? He went onto a rail car. The car moved down the tracks for 33,000 miles. Making plenty of local stops. Unbeknownst to Dewey or those elites in the stupid party ... "Give 'Em Hell, Harry" was born.

Did you know that at every whistle stop there were crowds of people? (Before it got called "fly over country" ... and got ignored.)

I'm not betting against obama.

Surely, my wishing an outcome ... can't change the way the ocean flows.

But if I had to bet? I'd bet on the phrase that "people don't change horses midstream."

"You can't fool me," brays Carol Herman. About what, you insane yenta from hell, about what? "I'm in love with Titus" coos the pathetic creature who Titus, the quintessential homo, doesn't even see as human being as how she's old, fat and a she.

Once around the block was enough with that horrible LBJ and his beagles that he pulled by the ears and showing off his operation scars on that horrible hanging gut that he insisted on shoving in our faces good ol' Texas boy ho ho ho. Jackie that elegant bitch was probably right that he had a hand in JFK's assassination.

There's so much bloat in our Federal government there's gonna be plenty on the plate for obama to cut.

He's gonna start with the rich white meat.

And, when he cuts loose ... it one affect a single person who votes for the democraps, as a general rule.

That's how I see the future. From my own front porch. Haven't switched my opinion, either. Though yes. Politics makes lots of people (who don't even have their own horse in the rice), so hot under the collar.

Maybe, it's like blowing on a crystal ball ... thinking you can heat things up ... where you can guess the unknowns with accuracy.

Or else you've stuck your palm out to a gypsy who can take your money.

Every "public" job is paid for by someone else who already has a job. (Or by your grandkid when the $1.5 trillion per year of deficit spending comes due.)

This simple fact is why there is a limit to job creating by government subsidy or employment. Eventually you come to the place where you are taking so much, in the aggregate, from those with jobs that they produce less. The reduced production either comes from a sensible choice not to work half their life for the government, or from a lack of capital to invest.

Obama has said he was focused--like a laser--on jobs ever since he took office. What he favors is not working. Time for something else.

There is no coverage of the Wisconsin Recall elections here in PA. At least not in the little town I'm in. Tomorrow I drive Dad to his Doctor's appt. We went to one today too. Dad has a lot of doctors.

Perhaps Alpha is just giddy from the gift the Federal Reserve gave to the Obama reelection campaign today. They have pledged to keep the discount rate at near zero until well into 2013.

By this time Obama may have proposed a budget for governing the country. He should be thinking about doing so. The Fed just increased his reelection prospects and just one budget during his likely 8 year term would be nice.

It would be churlish to say that a major reason why the Fed must continue this Japanese style zero interest thingy is that Obama's policies have not done what he promised for the economy, and the federal government can not afford higher interest rates at this time.

I do not suggest that the Fed governors favor Obama's reelection. Fact is, they have little choice since our elected representatives are incompetent at everything but blame shifting and avoidance of difficult choices.

Its amazing how the left has thrown EVERYTHING into these recall elections.

I mean, think about it: in just a few short years, Dems in this state have lost the governorship, two US House seats, a US Senate seat, the state assembly, the state senate, and a state supreme court election. Not regaining the state senate tonight would be a crushing blow to the left in this state, and to the left nationally...Ive read that outside interests have poured about $10 million into these races.

Ive predicted that Kapanke is the only recalled senator that loses on the GOP side tonight. And if that happens, the amount of money pissed away to win one state senate seat...amazing.

And even if the Dems win the senate back tonight, what is going to change? Walker still has gotten everything he wanted, passed his budget...its utter foolishness.

Its entertaining political theater that probably comes to a crashing halt tonight. If/when Darling and Hopper are declared winners, I would like to see the reaction at the big party the Dems and union bosses are having in Madison tonight.

Carol Herman said: "Boehner's from a safe district in Ohio. Since when is that Midwestern?"

Where do you suppose Ohio is, Carol?

"Meanwhile, Boehner's safe seat is in a place nobody, today, would venture to go to invest a dollar."

Oh, I see. You have Ohio confused with California. Ohio's economy is picking up steam under Gov. Kasich (R).

You keep impugning Boehner as a sell-out, Boehner, who's rated something like 96% conservative since he's been in the House (a rarity for Ohio, where many establishment Rs are rinos). He's done more in the last month to prevent Obama's re-election than anyone else has yet.

chickenlittle's comments about copper make more sense than this stuff you spit up over Ohio.

This one reminds me of pictures taken from outer space that show the earth as a blue marble covered in clouds, against a dark black back drop of space. Only instead of a smoothly curved surface, lumps!

Scott M...well maybe not, since I am familiar with southern Indiana but i was taking some ones story as to southern Illinois. He was a Hospital Administrator at Urbana /Champaign, and that was his opinion.

He was a Hospital Administrator at Urbana /Champaign, and that was his opinion.

If you talk to someone from Chicago, yeah, Urbana/Champaign is "southern" Illinois. If you look at a map, it's pretty clearly not. I would count southern Illinois as anything south of I-64, but that's just me maybe, with Carbondale at the epicenter.

Champaign/Urbana, as it's called by the locals, is home to the very large University Of Illinois. That has a significant effect on the local populace in terms of demographics and, most definitely, political landscape. Carbondale's Southern Illinois University has a similar effect on its area, but to a lesser extent, mainly due to the size.